Introduction The quality of life and of the environment can never be - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Affordances of School Grounds

for Children’s Outdoor Play and Environmental Learning

Nor Fadzila Aziz (PB103013) PhD Candidate Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr Ismail Said

Faculty of Built Environment Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 1 October 2014

Introduction



The quality of life and of the environment can never be improved without an understanding of the person-environment relationship.



There is a need to understand children’s perceptions about their environment as perceptions are a good predictor of people’s behaviour in some contexts (Ball et al., 2008) when the psychology behind their behaviour remains unexplained by the objective measure approach (Ward Thompson, 2013).



An understanding of children’s perceptions will lead to an understanding of their emotions, needs, preferences and interactions.



It is an essential part of the process of creating a child-friendly environment that will offer more meaningful experiences for children through an encouraging engagement and interaction with the environment.

School Grounds

Schools grounds as potential sites for children’s outdoor play and environmental learning



School grounds provides the opportunities for children to interact with the school environment through movement, investigation, concentration and social interaction.

• Promotes children’s physical, social and cognitive development and

children’s health (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008; Willenberg et al., 2010)

• Potential sites for place-based or environmental learning and instruction

(Malone and Tranter, 2003a, 2003b; Dyment, 2005; Dyment et al., 2009; Powell, 2007; Stanley 2010)



Children’s outdoor play in the school grounds is a fundamental component of informal learning, which has been referred to as environmental learning by Tranter and Malone (2004).

Research Problems

PROBLEMS

• Adults often overlook

the values of outdoor play and informal learning that lies

• utside the classroom

1 SG DESIGN

• Conventional school

grounds

• Limited spaces and

landscape features for children’s play

• Children’s views in

planning and design are generally ignored

2 SG CULTURE

• The regulations restrict

children from playing at certain times and places

• The creative, widespread

use of school grounds for

• utdoor play were

viewed as hazardous and irrelevant Courtyard (paved area) Field Backyard

Design Culture

Restrictions and the issues

• f accessibility

Research Gap

There has been a variety of research about school grounds, but most studies have focused either on the impacts of the physical environment on children’s behaviour and levels of physical activity

• r on children’s perception of their school grounds environment.



The studies overlooked the connection between the physical environment and the social context of school grounds regarding the actualisation of affordances and the formation of children’s preferences.



Research focusing on children’s values of outdoor play for environmental learning in relation to the physical and social contexts of school grounds is less studied.

Therefore, more comprehensive research is required to explore the connection between children’s experiences within the designed school grounds environment with their perceptions of the ideal school grounds for environmental learning.

Research Aim

To identify the influential factors affecting

the actualisation of affordances and children’s preferences regarding the use of school grounds for outdoor play and environmental learning

Research Objectives

1.

To explore the affordances of the school grounds from the children’s perspective

2.

To identify the factors that influence the level of actualised affordances in the school grounds

3.

To explore the perceptions of children and teachers on the use of school grounds for environmental learning

4.

To distinguish the meaning of ideal school grounds that permit environmental learning

Research Questions

RESEARCH ASSUMPTION:

As school is being included in the ‘institutional triangle’ of children’s daily live, it signifies the important roles of school grounds for children’s outdoor play and environmental learning in outdoor

• environments. The physical and social contexts of school grounds may significantly influence the
• pportunities for children to engage in outdoor play and gain environmental learning.

KEY RESEARCH QUESTION RESEARCH QUESTION

Why are the appropriate physical and social contexts

• f school grounds

important in promoting

• utdoor play and

environmental learning among children?

PART 1: Environment-behaviour responses

• 1. How are the school grounds being used by the children for outdoor

play during non-formal and informal learning?

• 2. What are the differences in children’s play behaviour patterns during

the sessions? Why?

• 3. What are the properties and attributes of school grounds that

influence children’s play behaviour patterns? PART 2: Perceptual responses

• 4. What are the potential and barriers of school grounds for

environmental learning?

• 5. What are the children’s and teachers’ preferences and needs for ideal

school grounds?

Research Underpinnings

Environmental Affordances Person- environment fit z Environmental Preferences

U2 U1 U3 Gibson, 1979; Heft, 1988, 2010; Reed, 1996; Miller et al., 1998; Kyttä, 2003, 2004, 2006; Powel, 2007; Kernan 2010; Storli and Hagen, 2010; Laaksoharju et al., 2012 Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987; Caplan and Harrisson, 1993; Kristof, 1996; Edwards et al., 1998; Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008; Eccles et al., 1991; Stokols, 1979; Bonnes and Secciaroli, 1995; Haikkola et al., 2007 Kyttä, 2003 Ulrich, 1983 ; Kaplan, 1987; van Andel, 1990; Eubanks Owens, 1994; Malinowski and Thurbert, 1996; Korpela et al., 2002; Hartig and Staats, 2005; Matsuoka and Kaplan, 2008

Variables of the Study

DIMENSION VARIABLES ITEMS

• 1. Properties and

attributes of school grounds (ENVIRONMENT) a) Physical environmental properties b) Physical environmental attributes c) Social/cultural properties and attributes d) Accessibility  Features – natural and man-made features  Design – spaces, size, space connectivity  Availability, functionality, adequacy, aesthetic quality, safety  Policies, regulations, social dynamics  Physical – location, easily access  Socially – permitted/restricted

• 2. Behavioural

responses (ACTION) e) Opportunities for

• utdoor play

f) Actualisation of affordances  Use, activities, types of play, play behaviour pattern, social interaction, performance  Place affordances, level and taxonomy of affordances, fields of free, promoted and constrained action

• 3. Perceptual

responses (EXPERIENCE) g) Place preferences h) Perception of environmental learning i) Conception of ideal school grounds j) Emotional effects  Favourite and disliked places in school grounds  Potentials and barriers of environmental learning in school grounds  Needs – Communal, physical, emotional and educational needs  Preferences – Features and design patterns  Positive and negative feelings from interaction with school grounds environment

Environmental Learning Children’s Outdoor Play Actualisation of Affordances

potential site for

Preferences School Grounds Environment

Perception and attitude towards Conception of ideal school grounds

• ffered

affordances perceived affordances

• ffered

affordances

BOTTOM UP

Children’s interactions Children’s needs CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOURAL AND PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES PLANNING AND DESIGN OF SCHOOL GROUNDS Children’s emotions

Interrelationship between Variables

D1 D2 D3

The Study Sites

SELECTION CRITERIA:



The school is a national school of the MOE;



The school has been recognised as a Sustainable School – An Environment Award through participation in the programme for the session 2009/2010;



The selected schools should represent different localities of school – an urban school and a rural school; and



The area of each school is between 2.5 to 5 acres (approximately 10,000-21,000 square meters).

• 1. SK Taman Molek, Johor Bahru (urban school)
• 2. SK Sungai Bunyi, Pontian (rural school)

Zoning

• 1. Urban school
• 2. Rural school

Area (m2) % Area (m2) %

Enclosed space 1578 9 1229 12 Semi-enclosed space 859 5 755 7 Green area 10606 58 4878 47 Asphalt area 1895 10 1909 18 Paved area 1453 8 Walkway/corridor 1426 8 1347 13 Drain/others 548 3 245 2 TOTAL AREA 18365 100 10364 100

Research Methodology

Research Design

Exploratory research Mixed methods design (Concurrent nested strategy) Transactional approach in a phenomenology study Qualitative (Predominant method) Quantitative (Embedded method) Children (Stratified purposeful sampling) Teachers (Simple random sampling) Data analysis and triangulation

Findings

Measurement Strategies

STRATEGY RESPONDENT OBJECTIVE a) Walkabout interview and mapping Children (n=80) RO#1 b) Photography and discussion RO#2 c) Drawing RO#4 d) Preference survey RO#3 e) Survey questionnaire Teachers (n=71) RO#3 RO#4

RO #1

Affordances of school grounds Children’s walkabout interview & mapping (n=80) Children’s photography & discussion (n=80)

RO #2

Factors that influence level of affordances

RO #3

Environmental learning in school grounds Children’s preference survey (n=80)

RO #4

Ideal school grounds for environmental learning

Outdoor play activities

The use of school grounds environment Play behaviour patterns & children’s performances

Place preferences

Children’s affection & evaluation towards the environment Properties & attributes

• f school grounds

Person-environment relationship (“ACTUAL” environment) Needs & preferences

The potentials & barriers of school grounds for environmental learning Beliefs, preferences & needs Meaning and understanding on the potential affordances

• f school grounds

Features, design patterns & aspects considered

Perceptual & conception (“IDEAL” environment) Physical & social factors

Theoretical & design implication in enhancing school grounds’ potentials

Teacher’s survey questionnaire (n=71) Children’s drawing (n=80) Descriptive statistics (Univariate) Spatial analysis (Hotspots) Content analysis (Interpretative) Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics RASCH Model Descriptive statistics Content analysis

TRIANGULATION

Perceptions & attitudes

Research Objectives

Research Findings

OBJECTIVE VARIABLES/ ITEMS RESULTS AND FINDINGS RO #1

• 1. Opportunities for
• utdoor play

The SG offered more play opportunities for the children during the Informal Learning (IL) than the Non-formal Learning (NL) sessions.

• 2. Play behaviour

patterns Different play behaviour patterns during NL (prescribed play and organized play) and IL (unstructured activities, imaginative, creative and active-free play).

• 3. Actualisation of

affordances Place affordances: The opposing trends during NL (school field) and IL (semi-enclosed space) at both schools. Taxonomy of affordances: The school grounds offered more MM features for children to engage with, suggests that the SG have barren landscapes.

• Categories for NA features: Graspable objects, Flat surfaces, Sociality.
• Categories for MM features: Graspable objects, Attached objects, Flat surfaces.

Level of affordances: The MM features offered more affordances for children to utilise and shape the features. RO #2

• 1. Spatial patterns
• f place

preferences Different hotspots areas for favourite and disliked places & similar trends at both schools:

• Favourite places: Concentrated at certain places (Green areas).
• Disliked places: Scattered among many places (Green areas, Paved areas,

Semi-enclosed spaces).

• 2. Factors that

influence children’s place preferences Children’s responses were categorised into 19 categories, then sorted into 6 main themes (environmental characteristics):

• Functionality, Accessibility, Attractiveness, Aesthetic quality, Comfortability

and Safety Different environmental characteristics for different place preferences:

• Favourite places: Functionality, Attractiveness, Aesthetic quality, Comfortability
• Disliked places: Safety, Aesthetic quality, Comfortability, Accessibility

Research Findings

OBJECTIVE VARIABLES/ ITEMS RESULTS AND FINDINGS RO #3

• 1. Children’s

perception on learning in SG Majority of the children preferred to learn in SG

• Positive perception: Contact with nature, affection, comfortable, play, change

learning routine, see others, better concentration and understanding.

• Negative perception: Microclimate, boring, noisy, safety, inadequate facilities,

less concentration.

• 2. Teachers’

perception on the use of SG for PLBD Majority of the teachers gave positive responses

• Potentials: Afford EE, diversify and enhance P&P activities, long-life leisure,

develop skills and attitude, hands-on experiences.

• Barriers: Safety, limited spaces, resources, budgets and time, weather and

environmental conditions. RO #4

• 1. Children’s

perception on ideal SG 12 categories of Environmental features were categories into 4 main categories:

• MM (Attached and graspable objects, facilities, vehicles); NA (Animals, vegetation,

topography, water features, surface features); SO (People, activity); CL (climate). 19 relevant Design patterns were identified from children’s drawings:

• The most drawn: Green area, reference, animal life, quite area, play area,

field, orchard, context of SG, private space.

• The least drawn: Learning zone, canteen, sporting court, pathway, campus plan,

promenade, technology, grassy area, hard surface area, entrance area.

• 2. Teachers’

perception on ideal SG 6 relevant Design Patterns:

• Learning zone, green area, display space, play area, animal life, quiet area.

Aspects considered for SG environment:

• Environmental aspects: Attractiveness, Comfortability, Aesthetic quality, Safety.
• Other aspects: Maintenance work, support from school, PLBD in curriculum, training

for teachers, budget, resources for teaching, time management.